Think Very Carefully...

[Telstra]

Oh by the way, atheist should mean that people who studied religion and they don't believe.

People who don't study religion are neither theist nor atheist.
They are simply ignorant and maybe fear god.

 

[Dolmance]

Hardly a notion, more a fact of life.

Militant fundamentalists of all varieties are determined to propagate their agenda with the militancy of an army battle group, totally focused on victory over their opposition which on the contrary does not persuade, rather alienates the very people whose eyes they are attempting to open with the zeal normally associated with the fervour of religious fanatics.

Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins represent a trinity of obsessed, born again atheists whose media crusades represent a blitzkrieg targeted at those who they believe can be converted by their aggressive, even mocking approach to theists that identifies the atheist evangelist as extremist, as are those Taliban fundamentalists so determined to turn the clock back to the sixth century in tribute to their perception that their prophet would condone their violent tactics.

That many militant atheists view theists in some manner, defective even lacking intellectual awareness can be interpreted as damning proof of the manifestation of a superior (atheist) life form eulogising, even praising the much publicised benefits of atheism as a means to live life in a manner best representing the superiority of the higher evolved human person who embraces the atheistic path through life.

There is an irony in that both fundamentalist theists, and the fundamentalist atheist mind sets are focused on ridiculing their respective opponents with the militancy normally reserved for destroying ones most hated enemy.

Boiled down, it seems that you define "militant" as: "Anyone who wishes to change the minds of others to accord with their ways of thinking." This is interesting in that you apply it with scorn to atheists or critics of religion, but do not seem to equally to those of religion or spiritual persuasion who seek the same ends, this despite the fact that the MEANS by which both groups go about their apoparent agendas are so markedly different.

Once again: What, precisely, are these "militant atheists" doing in order to change people's minds?; They are writing books, they are engaging oin debate and conversation. Even when they are at their most frothing and bilious, this is all they are doing. IF you don't like it, then don't listen to their debates, don't read their books. Simple as that/ The fact that the religious have had platforms (RE: churches) and public offices for doing exactly this for centuries, much of which was enforced upon the general population via threats of social persecution and legal repercussion doesn't seem to register with you.

In stark contrast, what are the most evidently militant manifestations of religious position doing in order to "share" their perspectives? Considering your ridiculous parallel between fundamentalist muslims and what you call "fundamentalist atheists," I'd draw your attention very specifically to examples such as Saudi Arabia, 9/11, honour killings, 7/7 and so on and so forth. I'd also draw your attention to the tactics employed by the catholic "church" and evangelicals of every stripe to enforce their beliefs on all and sundry through public policy, the infestation and warping of education, science etc.

This is not to say that those who hold atheistic positions are incapable of being just extremist and potentially violent; it's entirely possible, if ideology is allowed to accrue around the core position and crystallise. However, the examples you cite of "militant atheism" bear no parallel to the evident inhumanities currently being committed by their equivalents in the religious world. Once again, it seems that this is an example of the position of privileged non-criticism religion has traditionally enjoyed, and still enjoys even in the minds of some moderate believers; their sense of balance and equivalence is entirely skewed one way: all a critic of religion has to do is engage in debate and raise their voice above a whisper, whereas those of a religious persuasion who engage in all manner of inhumanities are either A: disregarded as legitimate examples, despite evident justification for what they do being easily found in their requisite scriptures or their behaviour being protected/mandated by their church or B: Insulated and justified in their behaviour.

 

[kallipolis]

This is not to say that those who hold atheistic positions are incapable of being just extremist and potentially violent; it's entirely possible, if ideology is allowed to accrue around the core position and crystallise.

That's all that I needed as your admission confirming my clearly stated opinion.

 

[Sam Blum]

I hardly ever write anything in here, but I do look forward to reading the rest of the columns as they are published, more out of curiosity regarding what it is that the columnist thinks he will achieve and so on than anything else.

His writing was interesting in some instances: P3 he wrote "always," when it could have been "automatically." In P4 he seems to imply that everyone has an equally invested interest in genuinely understanding, and also that everyone who engages in this almost pointless debate* is capable of understanding, even when they truly want to grasp each nuance/concept, or think that they do in fact comprehend. P6 the reference to the citation of the story of Moses moving towards his God to collect the Commandments carries in it a double entendre, which he himself seems to have missed, and P7 holds ironically self-reflective use of the word "juvenile" while also writing (further irony) reductionist (& self-defeating) language such as "If there is a God, it must surely passeth all understanding."

*The only reason I have yet been able to discern for this kind of debate, is to remove from reach the arguments of God inspired/directed behaviour that people use at times when committing acts against other persons/peoples/groups, et cetera. Please tell me if there is another reason to try to provoke engagement in this debate. Even with the attempt to control the model within which this debate is promised to take place, the writer acknowledges obliquely that this is a debate between (at least) two different schools of thought: One position is logical - of the head and the individual's place in society; the other position of the heart and soul, under the reign of God and forsaking all others. These two positions cannot be changed by either party and the kind of language each group can use is different.

This brings me to an earlier post where I read a reference to the notion of the limitations of language and interpretation. While relevant in this discussion, I'm not sure how it relates (or indeed if I should take it to relate) to the beliefs of Christianity: 1 Cor 12:7-10.

Of course, 1 Cor 12:14-20 are relevant to the debate, too!

 

[Kulindahr]

Boiled down, it seems that you define "militant" as: "Anyone who wishes to change the minds of others to accord with their ways of thinking." This is interesting in that you apply it with scorn to atheists or critics of religion, but do not seem to equally to those of religion or spiritual persuasion who seek the same ends, this despite the fact that the MEANS by which both groups go about their apoparent agendas are so markedly different.

You're missing a factor. Add "in an obnoxious, rude, or insulting manner" to your proposal and I think you've got what kalli is saying.

 

[Kulindahr]

This brings me to an earlier post where I read a reference to the notion of the limitations of language and interpretation. While relevant in this discussion, I'm not sure how it relates (or indeed if I should take it to relate) to the beliefs of Christianity: 1 Cor 12:7-10.

Of course, 1 Cor 12:14-20 are relevant to the debate, too!

Those are just about the perfect places to go! They specify the remedy for the limitations of human language, and point out the dangers of going it alone or breaking off from the "flow", so to speak.

The two passages are a great indictment of the religious right, BTW.

 

[Dolmance]

You're missing a factor. Add "in an obnoxious, rude, or insulting manner" to your proposal and I think you've got what kalli is saying.

As opposed to proclaiming those who don't believe as they believe worthy of eternal torment?

Oh those terrible, militant atheists! Daring to be rude or belittling to those who claim they talk on behalf supreme divinity, especially considering those genuinely militant types who attempt to impose their beliefs on all and sundry either through legislation or outright violence.

Again, this is a classic example of the cultural privilege religion and religious claims have enjoyed, and which is slowly eroding: Somehow, proclaiming those who don't believe as you believe as worthy of eternal torment isn't militant, or insulting, or the ultimate slight on human dignity and the wonder of conscious existence, yet claiming that belief that a man literally rose from the dead etc as patently absurd is the ultimate insult; militancy of the worst kind!

I don't buy the play of outrage; the smokescreen of injury that's thrown up whenever criticism becomes too trenchant; it's a scurillous tactic, and sadly rather characteristic of those who exercise the supreme arrogance of proclaiming themselves connected to ultimate truth and supreme divinity.

 

[Kulindahr]

As opposed to proclaiming those who don't believe as they believe worthy of eternal torment?

Oh those terrible, militant atheists! Daring to be rude or belittling to those who claim they talk on behalf supreme divinity, especially considering those genuinely militant types who attempt to impose their beliefs on all and sundry either through legislation or outright violence.

Again, this is a classic example of the cultural privilege religion and religious claims have enjoyed, and which is slowly eroding: Somehow, proclaiming those who don't believe as you believe as worthy of eternal torment isn't militant, or insulting, or the ultimate slight on human dignity and the wonder of conscious existence, yet claiming that belief that a man literally rose from the dead etc as patently absurd is the ultimate insult; militancy of the worst kind!

I don't buy the play of outrage; the smokescreen of injury that's thrown up whenever criticism becomes too trenchant; it's a scurillous tactic, and sadly rather characteristic of those who exercise the supreme arrogance of proclaiming themselves connected to ultimate truth and supreme divinity.

I don't care if someone's an atheist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian Scientist, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, or whatever: there are fundamentalists among all of them, and those are the ones who turn rude and obnoxious and insulting. There's nothing of "privilege" about it, except in your argument: you want atheists to be allowed to engage in uncultured behavior and seemingly call it a virtue, but when others do the same it's reprehensible.
If anything, in practice I'm harsher on Christians for acting that way -- they have no excuse.

 

[kallipolis]

I don't buy the play of outrage; the smokescreen of injury that's thrown up whenever criticism becomes too trenchant; it's a scurillous tactic, and sadly rather characteristic of those who exercise the supreme arrogance of proclaiming themselves connected to ultimate truth and supreme divinity.

Most of the hate speech directed against theists erupting daily on a variety of threads across these forums speaks much more to the personal challenges facing the predictable poster, than it does to the actual issues being addressed when the well rehearsed catty chorus bellows forth their venomous invectives.

Or, hadn't you noticed?

 

[Sam Blum]

This is what I mean by suggesting that the columnist is pointlessly opening an opportunity for people to express redundant outrage at each other. Nobody gets to say much that hasn't already been said in a thousand ways already, and the people who speak, who almost all have really grand minds and scintillating universes within, reduce their words to a parole that is banal!

There are hordes on all sides of all arenas that bellow and froth hatred at others, over-generalising and assuming others to think and perceive in particular ways. There are generous and loving, intelligent and wise people on all sides who reach out to others in friendship and who offer respect and who recognize solidarity between their fellows, irrespective of emotional, spiritual, scientific and philosophical differences of position. People like this writer with his column make money out of confusing most of us into homogenizing the hatred, saying that in essence you can only believe one thing and to the exclusion of all else and of all others.

Fortunately, we are people complex and contradictory, allowed (regardless of whatever I might have written elsewhere at any given time ) to be contradictory, rational, blunt, sweet, mean, inappropriately sexually alluring (some men genuinely can't help it!), holy and saintly, loud and quiet, almost simultaneously. We can be spiritually connected and scientific and philosophical, as people. Our schools of thought may not blend so easily, if at all, but we can, and should. I think reading columns such as proposed here is worthwhile if it is done as a close reading of the text itself, not so much for searching for argued points that reinforce any of our own positions. That is we can rise above and recognise when we are being patronized, used and made subjects to an argument and then analyse how that is being attempted, or we can submit and be given more reasons to feel unhappy.

 

[kallipolis]

Fortunately, we are people complex and contradictory, allowed (regardless of whatever I might have written elsewhere at any given time ) to be contradictory, rational, blunt, sweet, mean, inappropriately sexually alluring (some men genuinely can't help it!), holy and saintly, loud and quiet, almost simultaneously.

Just being human.

Despite which, a few humans are more humane than others.

Just to rub it in. No vaseline included.

 

[Sam Blum]

You are a very cruel man to me, Kallipolis! So you got my 'hidden' message?